get_data_asset_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds genuine behavioral context: it explains that Python-side inspection is unreliable (StructBase.to_dict returns {}, GameplayTag prints as {}) and that this tool surfaces the real values. That is value well beyond the structured hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the Python caveat, then a structured Returns block. The caveat sentence is long but earns its place by justifying the tool's existence; only minor trimming is possible.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates with an explicit Returns shape (asset_path, asset_name, asset_class, asset_path_name, properties[{name,type,value}]) plus usage context and safety via annotations. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single asset_path parameter, so the schema already documents it fully; the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond restating it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (a DataAsset's class and ALL reflected properties with current values), and explicitly frames itself relative to the write counterpart set_data_asset_property. An agent can distinguish it from sibling getters like get_data_table_info without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names the alternative (inspecting from Python) and the condition that favors this tool, calling itself the 'read-back oracle' for set_data_asset_property. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or routing among the many other data_asset/data_table getters, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.